Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 20STCV19290, Date: 2022-10-31 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 20STCV19290    Hearing Date: October 31, 2022    Dept: 50

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

 

JASON DIZON,

                        Plaintiff,

            vs.

WESTERN ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, et al.,

                        Defendants.

Case No.:

20STCV19290

Hearing Date:

October 31, 2022

Hearing Time:    10:00 a.m.

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET FIVE, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,260 AGAINST DEFENDANT AND/OR ITS COUNSEL

 

 

Background

Plaintiff Jason Dizon (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Western Asset Management Company, LLC (“Defendant”) on May 20, 2020. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) retaliation in violation of Equal Pay Act, (2) whistleblower retaliation, (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (4) retaliation in violation of Cal. Labor Code § 98.6, (5) discrimination on the basis of association with protected group in violation of FEHA, (6) failure to prevent discrimination and/or retaliation in violation of FEHA, (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and (8) unlawful prohibition on discussing wages and working conditions.[1]

On February 21, 2022, Plaintiff served his Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents on Defendant (the “RFPs, Set Three”). (Freeze Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. E.) On March 25, 2022, Defendant served responses to the RFPs, Set Three. (Freeze Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. F.)

On May 19, 2022, the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”). (Freeze Decl., ¶ 16.) The Court’s May 19, 2022 minute order provides in pertinent part that “[w]ith regard to the issue of Defendant’s supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories, set 1, and requests for production set 3, the parties agreed and the Court ordered that, on or before 5/26/22, Defendant must serve, via email, verified supplemental responses thereto.” 

Plaintiff indicates that on May 26, 2022, Defendant served supplemental responses to the RFPs. (Freeze Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. G.)

Plaintiff now moves for an order compelling Defendant to serve further responses to the RFPs, Set Three, specifically, Requests Nos. 87-88, 90-94, and 97-98.[2] Plaintiff also requests sanctions. Defendant opposes. 

Discussion

As a threshold matter, Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Requests Nos. 87-88, 90-94, and 97-98 of his RFPs, Set Three. As set forth above, the Court’s May 19, 2022 minute order provides that “[w]ith regard to the issue of Defendant’s supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories, set 1, and requests for production set 3, the parties agreed and the Court ordered that, on or before 5/26/22, Defendant must serve, via email, verified supplemental responses thereto.” (Emphasis added.) 

Plaintiff acknowledges in the motion that “[o]n May 26, 2022, Defendant served its supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Three.” (Freeze Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. G.) In the instant motion, Plaintiff asserts that the supplemental May 26, 2022 responses contain deficiencies. (Freeze Decl., ¶ 9.) The Court notes that if Plaintiff seeks to compel additional supplemental responses to the RFPs, Set Three, a further IDC will be necessary. The subject May 19, 2022 IDC could not have addressed the supplemental responses Defendant served after the IDC on May 26, 2022. Defendant also indicates that on September 28, 2022, it supplemented its response to Plaintiff’s RFP No. 96 and produced responsive documents.[3] (Morphy Decl., ¶ 5; see also Morphy Decl., ¶ 7, “[t]he Parties have not participated in an IDC regarding WAM’s supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s RFPs, Set Three.”)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses and request for sanctions is denied.

In its opposition, Defendant seeks sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320, subdivision (b), which provides, “[e]xcept as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” In light of Plaintiff’s apparent confusion concerning the Court’s IDC requirement, the Court finds that the circumstances make the imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff unjust.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

 

DATED:  October 31, 2022                           ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court


[1]On May 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of his fifth cause of action, with prejudice.

[2]The Court notes that the caption page of Plaintiff’s notice of motion incorrectly indicates that Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents, set five.

[3]Although RFP No. 96 is not referenced in Plaintiff’s notice of motion, it is discussed in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of the motion.